NSA scans 75% of the Internet

August 21, 2013

(Credit: iStockphoto)

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday the existence of several NSA programs that allow for far greater surveillance than the government has admitted to, and, importantly, detail how the government forces Internet service providers (ISPs) to hand over raw data, TechCrunchreports.

The programs have the ability to “reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic,” according to the Journal, “including a wide array of communications by foreigners and Americans.”

That content includes the writing of emails — not merely their metadata — and touches phone calls placed inside the U.S. that use digital telephony.

During the 2002 Olympic games in Salt Lake City, the NSA worked with the FBI to track all email and text message communications of everyone in the area for a six-month period.

Comments (37)

It’s after 9 p.m. EST, and still nobody has discussed that Pvt. Manning was just sentenced to 35 years, and Snowden will be in exile for a very long time.

If Ray’s projections become fact, the Singularity will arrive before Manning serves his time (unless he gets shock parole, which is unlikely).

As we get closer and closer to the age of abundance that comes with the Sing, we should anticipate that the world will become a kinder and gentler place…except that human wickedness always finds a way.

But if things go according to prediction, then the people in power in the future may not be the hard-asses that they are today. Maybe they’ll be more forgiving in another 30 years.

Within a few short years, this information will be available to machines which will decide how to use it. This is a direct result of a failure of US leaders to adhere to constitutional principles, a trend started by W Bush and continued under Obama.

I find it funny that nobody mentions Mc Carthyism. The good old days when if you were suspected of being a commy, your life was ruined.. Who could forget Nixon using the IRS to ” get those Jew bastards”, or how blacks were treated before the ” Civil Rights ” era. I’m shocked at how myopic people are. Things were far worse before, and everybody spied on everybody. Really, it’s human nature. It’s a natural tendency to be a nosy busy body. There are good reasons for that strategically speaking.

What’s great about today is that we have greater transparency. By the forces of the age of communication we can organize and represent disenfranchised groups. In my request for specific crimes before, I say that to encourage the oversight that we have to execute over our government. It is here to serve us. As in V for vendetta ” people shouldn’t fear their governments, governments should fear their people”. It’s our responsibility to enact proper leadership. You can’t expect it to happen automatically. If Snowden has actual evidence of the government mining data and using it against some entities, it should be front page news. We should be up in arms against the guilty parties in our government and we should make restitution yo those so harmed, and that would include Snowden. He would be a national hero as a whistle blower. What We have here is a dead fish. There is no case that I’m aware of. All that happened was that he went to China and Russia and said that we are spying on them and ourselves. The programs that he disclosed were generally public knowledge. I remember in my radio shack electronics days, that we used to use tone codes to surf the telephone system, and any electronics geek knew that the government had put in back doors on telephone and computer systems Russia and China certainly knew. What’s important here is who has been abused and in what manner. If the government hasn’t used it’s legally acquired power in a lawful manner, it must be corrected. If there is egregious violations, then Snowden is a hero and we should support hum. I would if I thought he had uncovered something valuable. I still hope for his sake that hecan come up with something. Right now to me it looks like he just went off with classified documents to a foreign government. I mean even Putins remarks show how little Snowden has. If it was something reslly good, they’d be proud to let him in and rub our noses in our crimes. Whether tgey were toward Russia or American citizens. If it was against Americans they would be deriding us. Instead he say’s that Snowden can stay if he just shuts his trap up, and stops harming relations between Russia and the US. That’s sad. Snowden is a bomb shell that just fizzles. He’s guilty of breaking his oath and espionage. Legally speaking, those are some of Tge worst crimes that you can be convicted of. It’s ranked so Hugh because aiding and abetting an enemy or potential enemy can cost many lives. It’s similar to conspiring to commit murder. Whether or not you think the punishment fits the crime is a moot point. The law is the law. He most definitely showed classified documents to foreign nations. He is guilty of that crime. Whether or not Tge revelations about domestic spying can counter this in public opinion is irrelevant. One does not counteract the other. In my eyes he’s a sorry fool who should have just posted it secretly to Wikkileaks. In the long run I feel sorry for him. He threw his life away for no good reason. Deep throat exposed Nixons malfeasance for years and only fairly recently revealed his identity. All of this does illustrate one thing. We have little memory of past events, and how our government works. The Patriit Act was debated and modified in relatively open debate in congress. What Bush originally proposed was hemmed in because it was illegal. It was a contentious debate. How little we pay attention until it affects our emotional brain. Then outrage and indignation sets in. This event is in actuality being played like a fiddle for it’s political value.

Yes. You hit it on the nail head.
I had not intended to go down that road but left it as “similar activities” knowing as I do that many, “MANY” people (and I’m just referring to Americans) do have a myopic memory as you indicated, that they have a very limited short term memory and/or have a highly selective long term memory set, especially as they filter out things that do not ‘sit well’ with them or is disharmonious to their way of thinking.

All of that on top of municipalities (certain party members) wanting to eliminate history (or have done so) in many school districts in order to save money (I don’t want to discuss the other areas that were also cut – music, sports, etc.).
There are SOME who want to modify the history books to present, ahhh, other aspects in a different light.

Bri, you did a very good response.
We need history back in the classroom and mandatory for everyone. And that is because so many people do not remember some (or any) of the atrocities that took place, with many of them part of living history for some readers here.
But. We are in an era when we have a lot of people who cannot recall all 50 states, cannot tell you some ‘major’ countries in other parts of the world, they cannot tell you who some of the important figures of history are.

Personally Bri, I don’t find it funny that no one mentioned McCarthyism, or the Commies, or about the Jews and Blacks. I find it sad…. That’s just my take.

“McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.” — Wikipedia

McCarthyism is no longer an aberration. It’s the norm. That’s why it doesn’t need to go by that name.

Surely we don’t need to travel back in time to witness this kind of name-calling/fear-mongering at the national level? Similarly outrageous accusations are today made via the private sector and their media companies. Or anyone with a web presence. I think it’s unreasonable to assume a younger generation should hold up one individual’s name from this particular era of the past as the standard by which the current world should be judged.

Granted, that was probably (I have no first-hand knowledge myself) a fearful time to live in. Yet it was also very different. No 24-hour news. Only three networks– and the public owned the airwaves. Phones needed wires. There was no internet so most people had no real “voice” beyond a letter to the editor of the local newspaper(s).

If you think things were worse in the past you’re probably right. That’s not to say that many of our fellow human beings don’t have much to fear in the present day. That we don’t share their circumstances needs to be part of this discussion. And a lack of American citizenship doesn’t make the rest of the world less deserving of privacy and the protection of the law. Not that many Americans can expect privacy or protection of the law. Or should that be “Protection from the law”?

And finally, Edward Snowden didn’t give classified documents to a foreign government. He simply made them public. Neither did Bradley Manning. He made information public. Edward Snowden also exposed a massive government program to surveil just about everyone in the pursuit of terrorists. To the embarrassment of the powers-that-be. Both individuals have been called traitors and accused of aiding the enemy by public figures. Mostly without due process and without their accuser having had a chance to examine the evidence.

I guess that’s the problem of using wikipedia. There is no parallel today. Not even close. I was born in the sixties so it’s before my time. Your not understanding the reality of it. It would take a greater effort on your part to understand that it was far more severe than anything we have seen since.

As for Snowden. He signed papers and pledged an oath to not ” make public” those papers. It was not a decision that he had the power to make. Same goes for Manning. I’ve written about this before. There are other ways to get the information out. If you do that you are exposed to legal penalties. Whether you believe they are just or not.

If we remove the Patriot act the government can still spy on anyone it wants to, if it has probable cause. It gets a court order. Because communications are short lived yet storable, they have made a vault to keep it sll. If they suspect something they get a court order snd go to that vault. Snowden may have uncovered dome abuses of those new powers. For that he deserves praise. It doesn’t justify him disclosing documents to foreign countries.

During McCarthyism the government accused many people of many things without any proof. They then twisted the evidence in congressional hearings. Try You tubing it. Much of those hearings was filmed. To relate it to the Snowden case. It would be like he pulled out a list of people like McCarthy had made, and coukd clearly show that the government had harmed those individuals, as was proven after the McCarthy era. The peoples lives of those touched by McCarthyism could easily be shown to be harmed. There isn’t a single individual that I’m aware of, that Snowden has revealed as being harmed in even a small fraction of the amount that happened during McCarthyism. Not even a single one. Studying wikipedia isn’t comprehension. You’ll need to actually examine the facts themselves. I don’t have any sympathy for Snowden or Manning. I think their intentions were noble but they really dug their own graves. Manning is getting a Martha Stewart sentence. Manning is being made into a warning that you better think twice about wikileaks. It’s a common tactic for deterance. If Snowden get caught he can expect the ssme.

While lives were not exactly ruined, it illustrates the point that once “evidence” is collected, it can be used to incriminate someone for whatever the violation du jour happens to be – terrorism, drug crimes, copyright violation etc

Essentially we are moving to Minority Report pre-crime territory – but rather than a bunch of autistic savants pattern matching, we have super computers and NSA analysts (minus the ones that were fired in a knee jerk response to dissuade more Snowden activity)

I apologize if my reference to McCarthyism seems ill-informed. I was thinking of the junior Senator from Wisconsin who stated on the floor of the Senate that there were Communist Sympathizers in the State Department even though he was never able to provide evidence of his assertions and was eventually censured by the Senate.

What you describe sounds more like things which took place under the aegis of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. People were forced to appear before the Committee and answer questions under oath. (“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” was often used in films and TV as a shorthand reference to such hearings) And lots of peoples’ livelihoods were ruined– and some received prison sentences for perjury or refusing to testify– due to these hearings. My understanding is that much of the harm was done by employers who fired them or refused to hire them (out of fear of being soft on communism or viewed as a “red sympathizer”)

My interpretation would be that this is different than McCarthyism although McCarthyism is often interpreted broadly enough to include any victims of the “red scare”– although some of those accused were, in fact, active members of the Communist or Socialist Parties (those terms are often used interchangeably as well) or actual spies of the Soviet Union.

But you’re absolutely correct. Many did suffer for their beliefs or their friendships. Not only at the hands of the government I imagine. And mere suspicion (or malicious rumor) could make one a social pariah.

However, I do take exception to your statement that we have greater transparency now. I think transparency is probably very similar to earlier times in our nation’s history. We do eventually hear about things like the scope of NSA data collecting, or mistreatment of prisoners in the Abu Grahib prison scandal, or the torture of others in our war on terrorism. I don’t think this is transparency since the information isn’t usually revealed by members of the government or military commanders. It’s usually done by reporters or occasionally by rare whistle-blowers (such as Manning and Snowden).

And I realize you and many others believe Manning and Snowden broke laws or service agreements by revealing the information in the manner in which they did. So did Daniel Ellsberg back in 1971. What they did was a violation of some form of trust that their employers or military superiors had placed in them. That they will be found guilty according to the law is probably what will happen to them.

However, military law does allow members of the military to refuse to follow UNLAWFUL orders. [And I realize this doesn't apply to Snowden] Military personnel take an oath to defend the Constitution when they enlist. I believe that some of the things being done in the so-called “War on Terror” are illegal, unconstitutional, unAmerican, and inhuman. Except they’re all being done by American human beings who swore to protect and defend the Constitution and most haven’t been charged with any crimes as far as I know. So the “evidence” would suggest that I’m incorrect in my belief that any of these things are wrong.

Apologies to Bri (and the list) for singling him out in this response. I have a lot of respect for his opinions in these forums. This time I disagree with his interpretations and conclusions. I also realize this is not the sort of argument which produces a clear winner and loser.

Very good response and I’m glad you did so civilly I’m not here to get into flame wars or diatribes, just good discourse.

But, for me, History – we need to history taught (specifically in grade school, jr. high and high school) with many topics covered and remembered.
So that History does not repeat itself. Hopefully…

Snowden / Manning – binding oaths and/or NDAs (non disclosure agreements) – to me, these two items are something that cannot be scoffed at or discarded lightly. If there are issues, then an individual has to find a better way to do something about it, not just take the route these two did.
And yes, they both knew that foreign countries/governments ‘would’ see these documents, even if they did not explicitly hand over those docs directly.
They are not ‘heros’ – not in my book.

I would say we’re living in a McCarthy era RIGHT NOW. Look at how Paula Deen’s career was ruined because of something she said years ago, How George Zimmerman was almost railroaded (and would have been, if the government could find something he had said that was “racist”), how a great man, James Watson, was fired, his career and reputation ruined, for making a politically incorrect statement, and the countless others who were attacked and demonized for exercising their right to free speech. No, don’t try to talk about McCarthyism to me my friend. We’re living in an era far worse than that right now.

Scary!!! They should scan 100%!!!
Imagine if airports would security check only 75% of people who board the plane that your family is on, or if only 75% of the water you are drinking is actually treated (in the middle of the city), or if you only had a 75% chance for an open 911 line when your life is at stake

We are surrounded with deadly danger and this will just accelerate more with technological advancements. Someone earlier said, “Because they think all this stuff is for protection against terrorism…
Not for, say, keeping the people themselves in “order”. Yes Sir!!! You are exactly right…and all those gun advocates are right, too. It is not technology that kills, it is our faulty minds!!! All of us are currently inadequate to safely handle the incredible lethal power of the coming technology.

I for one want every one of you (as well as I should be) under close surveillance when we have “desktop molecular assemblers” in 10-15 years, so better get used to it! You’ll have to prove that your intelligence is past the threshold of being self destructive and no, purely biological brains wont do it, you’ll have to be partially or completely synthetic to reach the “safe zone”.

Until then, though it’s far from perfect, we have to have a powerful compound intelligence to keep us in order (not any one individual). When you think about the alternative (militias, drug lords, dictators), the US Government is far the best choice for now. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just not really a thinker but a follower of all the naysayer sheep whose main purpose is to blame their own sorry failures on the system in power.

Please accept my apology if I offended anybody but I’m just tired of all the “patriotic” people who keep bashing their own country. I didn’t born in this country but have more respect for it (including it’s government) than a majority of Americans!!! You are mistaken if you think this country is the “Forefathers’”. This country is ours with it’s current government and if you think it’s unacceptable, you should go abroad and check out the alternative. You have lived in peace for too long, your perception is warped and don’t realize how lucky you are to have a powerful government (with all it’s faults) watching so you can have your morning coffee in peace at your computer while freely bashing the very government that makes this possible for you. I’m done now, thank you!

After reading all the comments I’ve come to Tge conclusion that the government has been mining our communications for years. So there must be a long list of people harmed by this data mining. Let’s get them all together in a class action fashion and press our government to stop doing these type abuses. So, who is the first most abused that needs reparations? Surely some names must come to mind. Something similar to the IRS scandal. There must be some poster child of all this rampant abuse? The news should be flooded with the salacious details.

DSM sexually assaults a maid and we know every detail in hours. What are the details of these abuses? Who was abused in what fashion? Where is the list of illegally obtained information that was used against innocent individuals or institutions? I mean it’s obvious the government is out to get us. There should be a nice juicy list with lots of gory details. Can anyone in this forum name names? I mean please list the actual infractions. It’s an important point. These programs were inacted to protect us and they were reasoned by legal council, by elected representatives. We have an obligation to insure that every aspect of this system to protect us, is functioning properly. If there is something wrong we have the power to change it. I’m not so inclined to dismantle this unless there is due cause. That the government spies on things has been general knowledge for a long time. It has overstepped it’s bounds on many occasions. It has been hemmed in on many occasions. In all the information leaked by Sowden I have yet to hear that the government illegally obtained X information and used it in a harmful way against X individual. The IRS story was very clear. It is by no means the first time that the IRS has acted improperly. It probably won’t be the last. Come on guys, tell me all the atrocities of our totalitarian police state. If it is as rampant as you all say there should be a lot of posts replying to mine. Then I’d actually believe these wild accusations.

True, the powers that be (I don’t know if “government” is the proper term anymore) probably have been mining our communications for years. Digitized communication just makes it a whole lot easier to mine it at the source and store it for some unforeseen eventuality.

There’s been the suggestion recently that the oversight of the NSA and it’s ilk by our elected representatives and independent judiciary have broken down and that the people who are supposed to be overseen are basically unmonitored and not subject to most of the oversight that we assume our system of “checks and balances” was expressly designed to maintain. I’m not aware of lots of people suffering direct harm from this selective reinterpretation of oversight on our system of government but I don’t believe those who argue that it’s inconsistent with our ideas about freedom are without a basis for their concerns.

I don’t know how many people have been directly “injured” by data gathering. I know that Aaron Swartz committed suicide while under Federal prosecution for downloading academic journal articles. Being charged with a crime can become an injury to a person. So can a false conviction. So can a suspension of “habeas corpus” for those merely suspected of terrorism, or treason, or acts of journalism.

I also know that “intelligence” proved that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and thus justified an invasion which resulted in the loss of over 100,000 Iraqi lives, and an additional 5,000 plus in coalition forces– not to mention those who were gravely injured– and as much as a trillion dollars in U.S. government spending. Perhaps more or better data gathering might have prevented this particular invasion? Or at least found those WMDs? One can only hope…

Nearly 3% of the U.S. population is in prison, some other form of incarceration, or a parole of some sort. Most won’t recover economically from the loss of productive time and will be a burden on society even after their release. Will more surveillance keep people out of jail/prison or do just the opposite?

I agree that all this additional surveillance won’t directly affect most of us. So it’s basically harmless when we’re not the ones who are being arrested or having our property seized, or being harassed, or even inconvenienced. That we can shrug it off when it happens to someone else– particularly someone not a citizen of the United States– probably does do us harm. Particularly if we’ve been taught to believe that such harm to non-Americans isn’t worth our concern.

There are entire countries full of people who are being harmed by our system of surveillance. To call it collateral damage is an outrage.

The fact that this is known about the government also shows that greater transparency is possible. And really, is anyone actually surprised? If a government can keep an entire country off certain websites, it follows that they can monitor your communications. We just have to keep monitoring them.

It’s time more of these communications infrastructure providers were outed and then boycotted. Maybe they will stop blindly following orders from government stooges once their customers start disappearing.

Unfortunately George, we here in the U.S. have become incurably complacent. Slaves to TV, and other fast food of the mind, has softened our resolve and turned off our need to understand what is happening to us. People don’t mind being force-fed as long as it doesn’t interfere with their comfort. It’s become an inconvenience to question the policies that shape our world. As long as we are pacified with enough mind-numbing garbage and being properly entertained, nothing will change.

More people are concerned, the number concerned increases as the extent is better understood. The import in people’s lives is also beginning to be better communicated. If you want more people to be concerned, everyone has to read about it, think critically and communicate it to the people around you when you get the opportunity. That’s how awareness is increased. Especially since only a small fraction of journalism is covering this sort of thing in anything more than a superficial, non-analytical fashion.